IN RE: Amtrak Train Derailment at Frankewing, Tennessee, on October1, 1975

: Case MDL No. 273 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Fane lof5	y/o)
yo ET a
Cy SL
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL o Do RLY 4 . g : BE	ON 4 or TT SE	Is) 2 @n ) . .. i
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION hr, Jo Yoo TTtodo , 7 : ER .
IN RE AMTRAK TRAIN DERAILMENT AT ) DOCKET NO. ‘293, Wo PeFRANKEWING, TENNESSEE,ON OCTOBER 1, 1975 ) We
OPINION AND ORDER :
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD, EE A SERA
EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH S. LORD, III, HIER
STANLEY A. WEIGEL, AND ANDREW A. CAFFREY, JUDGES OF THE Lo
PANEL. Cl
PER CURIAM
This litigation consists of five actions pending in
two federal districts: four in the Middle District of : a
Tennessee and one in the Northern District of Illinois.
These actions have been brought by some of the fare-paying
passengers on a train of the National Rail Passenger Cor-
poration (Amtrak) which derailed at Frankewing, Tennessee, So
on October 1, 1975. At the time of the derailment there were :
45 fare-paying passengers and 20 railroad employees on the CL
train. The train was on the rail lines of the Louisville :
and Nashville Railroad Company (IL & N) and was operated by —
train and engine crew members provided by the L & N to Amtrak SEE
pursuant to an operating agreement. Defendants in the
actions are Amtrak and the L & N. Plaintiffs allege that
they have suffered injuries because of defendants' negligence ° - EN
in operating the derailed train and in maintaining the rail-
road tracks in the vicinity of the accident. So

. Case MDL No. 273 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 2 of 5
Defendants move the Panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 Co PEE a.
to transfer the action pending in the Northern District of Ce
Illinois to the Middle District of Tennessee for coordinated CT
or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the four actions
/
pending there. Only the plaintiff in the Illinois action
opposes transfer. _ EET ARTES
We find that these actions share common questions of EE EE
fact and that transfer of the action pending in the Northern SUE CT
District of Illinois to the Middle District of Tennessee
under Section 1407 for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings with the actions pending in that district will :
best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and :
2/
promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
: Plaintiff in the Illinois action contends that many
of the documents and witnesses relevant to her action :
are located in Illinois and that transfer of her action	to
the Middle District of Tennessee would impose undue hardships
upon her and her witnesses.
We find these arguments unpersuasive. As is often
true in multidistrict litigation arising from a single IEE
1/0n the day that this matter was scheduled for hearing,
the Panel filed an amended motion by defendants to transfer
an apparently related action, Darle A. Dale v. National
Railroad Passenger Corporation, et al., N.D. Illinois, Civil -
Action No. 76 C 3964, to the Middle District of Tennessee. So
Since this action came to the attention of the Panel too
late to be included in the initial hearing, this action will
be treated as a tag-along action. Rule 10(d), R.P.J.P.M.L.,
65 F.R.D. 253, 260 (1975).
2/Because none of the parties was present when this matter oo
was called at the Panel hearing, the matter was deemed sub-
mitted for decision on the basis of the papers filed.
Rule 14, id. at 264.

) Case MDL No. 273 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	3 of 5
' -.3 =
® transportation disaster, the actions before us share many |
i questions of fact concerning the respective liability of the
defendants and therefore transfer under Section 1407 is necessary
in order to prevent duplicative discovery	and eliminate the
possibility of conflicting pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re
Radiation Incident at Washington, D.C., 400 F. Supp. 1404,
1406 (J.P.M.L. 1975).
We believe that plaintiff's arguments, rather than re-
lating to the issue of liability, relate to the issue of
damages, which traditionally is unique to each action
emanating from a single transporation disaster. Discovery
pertaining to damage questions either may be scheduled by |
the transferee judge to proceed concurrently with the common
@ discovery, or may be left for the supervision of the
transferor court upon remand of the action at the completion
of the common discovery.proceedings. See id. In any event,
the depositions of witnesses may be taken in the area of
their residence, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d) (2), and thus there
is usually no need for witnesses to travel to the transferee
forum for pretrial under Section 1407. Furthermore, the judicious
use of liaison counsel, lead counsel and steering committees
can eliminate the need for most counsel ever to travel to the
transferee district and thereby can greatly reduce any in-
convenience which a party might otherwise incur as a result
of transfer. See Manual for Complex Litigation, Part 1, |
§§1.90-1.93 (rev. ed. 1973).

Case MDL No. 273 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	4 of 5 l
. a -
The Middle District of Tennessee is clearly the most Cappropriate transferee forum for this litigation. Four of
the five actions now before us are already pending there.
See In re Celotex Corporation "Technifoam" Products
Liability Litigation, 68 F.R.D. 502, 505 (J.P.M.L. 1975).
In addition, we see no reason to deviate from our
general rule of transferring transportation disaster liti-
gation to the district that encompasses the situs of the
disaster. See In re Air Crash Disaster at John F. Kennedy
International Airport, 407 F. Supp. 244, 246 (J.P.M.L. 1976).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. :
§1407, the action listed on the following Schedule A and
pending in the Northern District of Illinois be, and the
same hereby is, transferred to the Middle District of ®
Tennessee and, with the consent of that court, assigned
to the Honorable L. Clure Morton for coordinated or con-
solidated pretrial proceedings with the actions listed on
Schedule A and pending in that district.
@

to Sot Case MDL No. 273 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 5of 5
Ps SCHEDULE A |DOCKET NO. 273
Northern District of Illinois
Margaret Backs v. Amtrak, Inc., Civil Action No.
et al. 76 C 2638
Middle District of Tennessee
Elizabeth Marie Pennington v. National ~ Civil Action No.
Railroad Passenger Corp., et al. 76-143-NA-CV
Randall Brent Thompson, et al. v. National Civil Action No.
Railroad Passenger Corp., and Louisville 76-321-NA-CV
& Nashville Railroad Co. k
Melville M. Barnes v. National Railroad Civil Action No.
Passenger Corp., and Louisville & 76-352 NA-CV
Nashville Railroad Co.
Patricia Nixon v. National Railroad © civil Action No.
Passenger Corp. and Louisville & 76-379-NA-CV
Nashville Railroad Co.